Saturday, December 31, 2016

This has been a year when more of my focus has been on the economic impact of heritage including an analysis of the economic contribution of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Greece. Last year I anticipated further developments around Syria and Northern Iraq, as well as on-going pillaging of archaeological sites in England and Wales. I also suspected that Madrid and the Michael C. Carlos Museum would not be handing over their disputed objects in a hurry (and so they can continue to receive a mention here).

Returns to Italy
The head of Hades was returned to Italy from the J. Paul Getty Museum in January reminding us that disputed cultural property continues to reside in major museum collections. Material from a warehouse associated with Robin Symes has been returned consisting of 45 cases. This includes material linked to Giacomo Medici. Some 350 items have now been returned to Italy from North American public and private collections. Some of the material returned to Italy featured in the catalogue for the Sicily exhibition at the British Museum. The Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen agreed to return a large number of objects to Italy.

Syria and Iraq
Channel 4 produced a programme on antiquities from Syria and Iraq. During the preparation for the programme the team identified a recorded lintel from Syria on sale in London.

Returns to Egypt
A relief of Seti I was returned from London, as was a relief from the temple of Hatshepsut. My overview of recent looting in Egypt was made available. Sarah Parcak is conducting important work on remote sensing to detect the extent of looting in Egypt (and elsewhere).

Parthenon Marbles
2016 marked the 200th anniversary of the arrival of the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum.

Metal-detecting in the UK
In January I observed that unauthorised and illegal metal-detecting had been taking place at one of the Roman Saxon Shore forts at Bradwell on Sea in Essex. Yet there is the public presentation of 'treasure hot-spots' without open acknowledgement that damage is being sustained to the archaeological record. An Anglo-Saxon find from Norfolk was declared Treasure.

Coins
Nathan Elkins published important work on coins and the market and specifically the ACCG Test Case. The BM has published a useful book on Hoards.

Due diligence
The conflict in Syria and northern Iraq has re-invigorated the debate about "due diligence" and auction-houses. Some of the commentators have overlooked some of the material appearing in London. I keep suggesting that we need to outline collecting histories for objects and to drop the use of the word "provenance". Two lots were withdrawn from Christie's in New York after concerns had been raised about their associations with Becchina and Medici. Christie's in New York sold a Roman mosaic in spite of concerns being raised about its earlier collecting history. In October the same auction house attempted to auction a sculpture that was identified from the Schinoussa Archive. An Attic amphora due to be auctioned at Christie's in London was identified from photographs taken during a police raid in Greece and subsequently withdrawn. Bonhams in London offered an ex-Chesterman terracotta that had been identified from the Medici Archive and subsequently withdrew it. This raised questions about the Chesterman Collection sold to a major UK university museum. Failure to address the issue undermined the position of dealers and galleries contributing to the discussions at the APPG on Cultural Property. This lack of due diligence also appears to apply to major museums that continue to acquire objects with incomplete collecting histories.

Police are reporting that dinosaur footprints on the beach at Staffin on Skye, Scotland, have been damaged. It appears that someone poured paster into the imprints. Reports suggest that the person involved was in a camper van.

I am working my way through Tiffany Jenkins, Keeping their marbles: how the treasures of the past ended up in museums ... and why they should stay there (Oxford: OUP, 2016).

I will refrain from making my comments until I have finished but it is worth pointing out some of the reviews:

Mark Fisher, The Spectator March 2016: "Her level-headed and balanced book -- which not only considers the role of museums in shaping our historical understanding, but notes the way museums are being transformed by an outstanding generation of contemporary architects -- is a valuable contribution to the international debate, and will enrich audiences and scholars for a long time to come."

Kwame Opoku, Modern Ghana March 2016 [online]: "Jenkins, like many supporters of retention of artefacts of others, is very quick to argue that repatriating artefacts 'would be allowing modern-day sensibilities to rewrite history ' Seriously, does anybody believe that returning one Benin bronze to Benin is to rewrite history?"

Robert Hewison, Apollo April 2016: "Jenkins sees the collapse of grand museological narratives as the sign of a 'post-ideological age', but this book is hardly ideology-free. Concluding with the explosion of museum building in the Gulf and China, she writes that 'money has replaced might'. Yet these museums are a physical manifestation of the geopolitical forces that once brought the marbles to London. It seems inconceivable at present, but Greece may yet get them back."

Henrik Bering, WSJ 7 May 2016: "But for a poorly run country like Greece, what better way for the government to distract the population's attention than to engage in cultural warfare? From this perspective, says Ms. Jenkins, it is surely better that the marbles remain in Britain, so that the Greeks can continue to pose as much-wronged victims. Ms. Jenkins has produced a courageous and well-argued book; the howls you hear in the background are those of the contrition crowd."

Stefan Beck, The Weekly Standard June 2016: "This leads us, at last, to Jenkins's shrewdest and most devastating observation. Returning objects, and angrily demanding their return, serves today's great powers in much the same fashion that seizing those same objects served them centuries ago."

Lucia Marcini, Minerva 24.4 (July / August 2016): "She asserts that large visitor numbers and easy access for researchers are important reasons why leading museums should hold on to their celebrated treasures even though they may be plunder".

Johanna Haninck (Brown University), BMCR December 2016 [online]. "And while I find myself wholly at odds with the politics of this book, it is also the task of the reviewer to judge whether an author succeeds, on her own terms, to make a credible and persuasive intervention on behalf of her positions. Jenkins does not. Despite the sensationalistic claims made in the introduction and in the splashy marketing material, Keeping Their Marbles contributes almost nothing to (and arguably even sets back) the broader, evolving, and ever more sophisticated conversation about critical heritage studies, which should be a matter of concern to everyone who reads BMCR. The book is a diatribe—and not a very well-researched, well-documented, or well-written one—that has been dressed, advertised, and reviewed as an authoritative monograph issued by one of our field’s flagship presses."

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

AP circulated a press release last week noting that a relief stolen from the temple of Hatshepsut in 1975 had been returned to Egypt from London (e.g. "Egypt receives ancient stolen limestone relief", Daily Mail December 20, 2016). It appears that the relief had been purchased from a gallery in Spain by a London based dealer.

Which gallery in Spain?

I am particularly interested in the identity of the London dealer as due diligence in the London market is a major theme of the APPG on Cultural Property.

ARCA has provided a text-base version of the charges against New York dealer Nancy Wiener [see here].
There are some points to note:

apparent falsification of the collecting history ("provenance") of an object

apparent consigning genuine objects with other works to provide cover when passing through customs

weakness in the policy for accepting lots by a major New York auction house

the apparent changing of a stated collecting history by the same major New York auction house

We are particularly interested in co-conspirator #6:

Co-Conspirator #6 and his father are suppliers of illicit cultural property from primarily Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to several recorded conversations, Co-Conspirator #6 has been shipping large quantities of newly dug-up, stolen antiquities from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Thailand, often via Hong Kong, and then to dealers from around the world for more than a decade.

We note:

Co-Conspirator #6, who in the mid-1980s was a child living in Pakistan and England

“Defendant used a laundering process that included restoration services to hide damage from illegal excavations, straw purchases at auction houses to create sham ownership histories, and the creation of false provenance to predate international laws of patrimony prohibiting the exportation of looted antiquities,”

Such claims undermine the position of the market at a time when dealers are claiming to conduct due diligence. How common is the creation of "sham ownership histories"? What about placing objects in collections so that they pre-date the 1970 UNESCO Convention?

Jason Felch adds an important observation:

“Even after a decade of reforms, the art market continues to be pervaded with stolen and looted antiquities.”

Monday, December 12, 2016

The Cultural Property APPG met this afternoon (see also statement from "Walk of Truth"). There were two main themes: the first, the movement of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill through Parliament; the second, enforcement.

It made me reflect on what constituted cultural material with a "worldwide significance", perhaps prompted by some who wanted to ensure that they could continue to trade in low value pieces. (And readers might want to reflect on what pieces of cultural property have truly "worldwide significance".) Is there an over-reliance on the Red List (e.g. for Syria)? I have observed that some objects that appear to be derived from Syria and that are surfacing on the London market are in categories that do not feature in the list. Should we be concerned about them?

Lord Ashton used the Heritage Alliance "Heritage Day" on 1 December 2016 to draw attention to the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill that is currently moving its way through Parliament. In his speech (available here from DCMS) he noted:

I have responsibility in the House of Lords for the passage of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill. It will protect cultural property at home and abroad; introduces the Blue Shield – an emblem which is the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross; and makes it a prosecutable offence to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property from an occupied territory.

More than six decades after signing it, we will become the first Permanent Member of the UN Security Council to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols.

Abstract
Based on research into the confiscated photographic and document
archives in the hands of the top antiquities dealers (Robin Symes-Christos
Michaelides, Robert Hecht, Giacomo Medici, and Gianfranco Becchina), so far
more than 250 looted and smuggled masterpieces have been repatriated from
the most reputable North American museums, private collections, and galleries,
mainly to the Italian and the Greek states. Most of these repatriations were
advertised in the press as voluntary action by the institutions and the individuals
who possessed them. However, this is far from true; the repatriations were the
results of lengthy negotiations, where the presentation of evidence alternated
with diplomatic tactics and legal threats in order for the two parties (in some
cases, three) to reach an agreement. Among the much-celebrated repatriated
antiquities are at least two cases that require further research regarding their legal
owner. This article aims to analyze these two cases and to set out new questions.
In the end, there is doubt that the state who finally received these antiquities is
necessarily the one from which they have been looted and smuggled. Based on
this analysis, the article aims to highlight alternative paths to the discovery of the
truth, paths that might have been more effective, if they had been followed.

Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has pointed out that an image of the situla appears in the Becchina archive. He notes: "A handwritten note indicates that the images were sent from Raffaele Montichelli, a convicted antiquities trafficker, to Becchina on 18 March 1988". The image shows that the situla is covered in salt encrustations and is presumably relatively fresh out of the ground.

It is known that part of the James Stirt collection was derived from Ellie Borowski (e.g. an Athenian black-figured cup that passed through Christie's London in 2014 [see Beazley Archive]). In this case the source is Heidi Vollmöller of Zurich.

Dale Trendall [not Sir John Boardman as in the catalogue] described the Lycurgus painter as representing "the culmination of the second phase of the 'Ornate'" (Red Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily, p.80).

The Becchina image suggests that this situla surfaced post-1970. The Munich auction-house needs to be seen to act responsibly, to withdraw the situla from the auction, and to contact the Italian authorities.

Tsirogiannis points out that the Becchina photograph is dated to 24 September 1988. The objects appear to have been supplied by Raffaele Montichelli.

The significance of the collecting history is that the object was offered for auction at Christie's (London) on 15 April 2015 (lot 113). This is one of four lots withdrawn from the Christie's sale after Tsirogiannis had raised concerns about their collecting histories. It is perhaps noteworthy that the online Christie's catalogue has removed information about the askos.

This raises a number of questions:

Was the askos sold at Christie's in spite of being withdrawn?

Was the askos returned to its vendor?

Is the vendor at Gorny & Mosch the same as at Christie's?

This raises further issues about the lack of sufficient rigour on the part of the team at Gorny & Mosch. Were they unaware of the controversy surrounding the askos at last year's sale?

Gorny & Mosch need to take responsible action and withdraw the askos from the auction and to contact the Italian authorities.

Why is there no mention of the Athos Moretti collection in Bellinzona? What is the authenticated documentation that it was in this collection?

Why is there no mention of the Royal-Athena Galleries catalogue of 1985?

Why is there no mention of Dr Leo Mildenberg?

Why place the R.G. collection in Germany rather than Mauritius?

The more intriguing question is when was the bronze handled by Robin Symes? And why is there no mention of this?

It would be interesting to learn more about the collection of Dr Athos Moretti, not least because the Dallas Museum of Art is reported to have acquired a large part of his collection of jewellery in 1991.

It does suggest that the due diligence process for Gorny & Mosch needs to be tightened. For previous mentions of this auction house see Operation Ghelas.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Cambridge based archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogannis has made a number of new identifications for items that are due to be auctioned by Gorny & Mosch in Munich on 14 December 2016.

Below is a text based on Tsirogiannis' notes and reproduced with his permission.

1. An Etruscan bronze figure of a youth (lot 19)
Mid 5th century B.C.
Collecting history:
'Ex Sammlung R.G., Deutschland. Bei Royal Athena Galleries, New York, Catalogue XXI, 2010, 43. Ex Sotheby´s Catalogue of Antiquities 13. Juli 1981, 341'.
Tsirogiannis had previously identified the same figure from the Symes archive when it was on offer in the Royal Athena Galleries on October 2010. It was one of several pieces identified from the Medici and the Becchina archives. In January 2011 these identifications were presented in brief through 'Looting Matters' and by the Italian journalist Fabio Isman in Il Giornale dell'Arte (see here). It is unclear why this piece has resurfaced given the earlier discussion.

2. An Apulian red-figure situla attributed to the Lycurgus painter. (Lot 87)
360 - 350 B.C.
collecting history: 'Provenienz: Aus der James Stirt Collection, Vevey in der Schweiz, erworben 1997 bei Heidi Vollmöller, Zürich'.
This situla is shown covered with soil and salt encrustations from an image in the Becchina archive.
A handwritten note indicates that the images were sent from Raffaele Montichelli to Becchina on 18 March 1988. this predates the collecting history presented by Gorny & Mosch.

4. A Gnathian squat alabastron with the bust of a winged woman with sakkos, attributed to the White Sakkos Painter (Lot 127)
Apulia, 320 - 310 B.C.
Collecting history: 'Ex Christie´s London, 15.04.2015, ex 113; aus der Privatsammlung von Hans Humbel, Schweiz, erworben bei der Galerie Arete, Zürich in den frühen 1990er Jahren'.
This alabastron is also depicted in the Becchina archive in an image dating 24 September 1988, sent to Becchina again by Raffaele Montichelli. Again the date on the image is pre-dates the collecting history given by Gorny & Mosch.
However, the most significant element of this case is that it is the first example of an object reappearing after it was withdrawn following one of Tsiirgiannis' identifications.This alabastron was one of the two vases comprising lot 113, in Christie's 15/4/2015 antiquities auction in London. At that point the alabastron was among four identifications Tsirogiannis made and all four antiquities were withdrawn before the auction. All four cases and the image of the alabastron were published on the ARCA blog. It seems that the owner of the alabastron is trying to sell the vase in the antiquities market of a different country, thinking that Tsirogiannis would not notice the piece.

Tsirogiannis reports that Interpol as well as German and Italian authorities have been informed.

Now that Bonhams has withdrawn an Etruscan antefix from its auction due to what appear to be links with the Medici Dossier it is important that the collecting histories of the Chesterman collection of terracottas are explored and investigated.

Are any of the sources for these terracottas ones that are already known from the hundreds of objects already returned to Greece and Italy?

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Bonhams has withdrawn the Etruscan antefix from its sale of antiquities after images of what appeared to be the piece were identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in the Medici Dossier.

The staff of Bonhams now need to reflect on their due diligence process and perhaps the auction house's use of "stolen" art databases. It has been pointed out at the APPG in Westminster that there are clear issues about the over reliance of such databases for identifying recently surfaced archaeological objects.

The decision to withdraw the lot will presumably imply a detailed analysis of the Chesterman collection and the origins of each of the terracottas.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has made another identification from the Medici Dossier. The piece in question is a 6th century BC Etruscan terracotta antefix that is due to be auctioned in London later this month (Bonhams 30 November 2016, lot 14). The collecting history ("provenance") is given as:

James Chesterman Collection (1926-2014), formed in the UK in the 1970s-2000.

With À la Reine Margot, Paris, acquired in December 1986.

The antefix appears in two images, one as a standard Polaroid, the other as a record card for the Hydra Gallery. Hydra Galerie has been associated with Medici and has been discussed before, for example:

It is not clear why Bonham's has not mentioned Hydra Galerie in the collecting history. But note that on the card there is the annotation that the piece was to be assigned "v[ia] Londr[a]" with a value of $1,500.

The association with James Chesterman clearly has implications. I have listed some of his terracottas (and the associated bibliography) in:

I note that among the three examples I described was one that was acquired from N. Koutoulakis.

This new identification yet again raises issues about the due diligence process conducted by and on behalf of the auction houses. Staff at Bonhams are, I am sure, aware that the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill is passing through the UK Parliament at the moment and that it is in the interest of those involved with the sale of archaeological material to be seen to be taking action when concerns are raised about objects that surface on the market.

I understand that the relevant authorities in Italy and the UK have been informed.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

The latest number of the International Journal of Cultural Property (IJCP) 23.3 (August 2016) has a cluster of papers that will be of interest. The starting point is Elizabeth Marlowe's, "What We Talk About When We Talk About Provenance: A Response to Chippindale and Gill" [DOI], pp. 217-236.

In an influential article published in 2000, David Gill and Christopher Chippindale devised a scale to assess the quality of the provenance information provided for the antiquities displayed in seven recent high-profile exhibitions or collections. This article critically reviews Chippindale and Gill’s provenance scale, arguing that the values it encodes legitimize some of the more intellectually harmful practices of dealers and curators. The scale also fails to differentiate between more intellectually responsible methods of hypothesizing provenance and those that merely generate houses of cards. An alternative model for assessing how antiquities are discussed in museum scholarship, focusing on epistemological precision and reflexivity, is offered.

The Hansard text of the second reading of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill on Monday 31 October 2016 has now been made available.

Some highlights in the debate (that ranged over a number of cultural issues beyond the Bill) include:

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley): "We are lucky to have a highly professional and dedicated heritage and museum sector that works extremely hard to preserve our heritage and bring the story of our history to life. This work helps attract visitors to our shores too. We also have a duty to help protect the culture and heritage of other countries, for they are part of our shared inheritance as human beings."

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): "Can she assure the House that after the 62 years we have waited since we signed the treaty, there will not be another 62 years until the Government bring it into effect?"

Karen Bradley: "Although dealers will need to satisfy themselves through due diligence that there is no reasonable cause to suspect that objects presented for sale have been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory, existing codes of conduct already oblige dealers not to import, export or transfer the ownership of objects where they have reasonable ​cause to believe that the object has been exported in violation of another country’s laws. Dealers will not be required to carry out any further due diligence beyond that which they should already be conducting. In order to commit an offence, a dealer must deal in an object knowing, or having reason to suspect, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has pointed out, that it has been unlawfully exported. If a dealer takes temporary possession of an object for the purposes of carrying out due diligence or providing valuations, they will not be dealing in that object, because they will not be acquiring the object."

Keven Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): "That leads me to one of the central concerns about the Bill. We will support it on Second Reading tonight and throughout its later stages. However, although the Bill has been brought forward in the context of the aftermath of the destruction of cultural treasures in recent conflicts, it does not, as I understand it, cover the actions I have described because they were carried out by occupying forces that are not recognised states. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the Bill will not necessarily prevent extremists from intimidating people into complying. In her response to the debate, will she tell us whether that comes within the Bill’s scope or powers?".

Chris Bryant: "Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Museum plays an absolutely vital role—not only in this country, but in modern Iraq and Syria—in trying to protect many Mesopotamian antiquities? Indeed, the British Museum was in closer contact than anybody else with those who were summarily executed.
While we are being nice to Government Members, will my hon. Friend congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on the fact that, from the moment he arrived in the House, he has pursued this issue?".

Keven Brennan: "My hon. Friend mentioned the British Museum, which is a wonderful institution. If we are candid, however, we should recognise that our own hands are not necessarily entirely historically clean in relation to the removal of cultural property. That occurred in Britain’s colonial history, and it was used to build British wealth and power at the direct expense of colonised nations. Recent speculation concerning the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles to Greece, as well as campaigns to return the Koh-i-noor diamond to India and the Benin bronze cockerel to Nigeria, shows that the removal of cultural property reverberates through the centuries. I notice that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is shaking his head."

Keven Brennan: "During the Second Reading debate in the Lords, Lord Redesdale mentioned the Ministry of Defence’s plans to create a squad of monuments men—and, presumably, women as well—whose focus would be to safeguard cultural property during armed conflicts. As I understand it, they would be soldiers with archaeology ​qualifications and the like. Meanwhile, the Department for Education has been campaigning against so-called soft subjects, leading to exam boards ending archaeology, art history and classical civilisation A-levels. The AQA explained its decision to cut A-level archaeology as follows:
“Our number one priority is making sure every student gets the result they deserve…the complex and specialist nature of the exams creates too many risks on that front”—
I am not sure how not offering an exam in a subject will make it any less specialist than it already is. On history of art, the AQA stated that the decision had nothing to do with the importance of the subject and
“won’t stop students going on to do a degree in it”.
That logic seems flawed to me. But it does not make a pretty picture overall, let alone a masterpiece, to have the Ministry of Defence wanting more soldiers with knowledge of art history and archaeology and the Department for Education cutting those same subjects from our classrooms, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is ratifying conventions and proclaiming that a national priority.
"

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): "Cultural assets are also part of the world’s heritage, and we all have a duty to do our utmost to safeguard that heritage. For that reason, I was delighted when the Government established the cultural protection fund, worth £30 million, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fund was established, and the Education Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for International Development, for their part in agreeing to that, as a large part of the fund can be classified as international aid. I also pay tribute to Neil MacGregor—he has already been mentioned—who was the driving force for the establishment of the fund. He and I launched it together, and, as the director of the British Museum at the time, he took responsibility for the first phase, a £3 million fund administered by the British Museum to send archaeologists into Iraq to advise and help in restoration where damage had taken place."

John Whittingdale: "The Committee heard concern about one aspect of the Bill: the offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. The first concern was about the definition of occupied territories. At the time, we were told that it was a very narrow definition, or that only a narrow ​group of countries or territories could be considered to be occupied. In 2008, the regulatory impact assessment identified the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and the west bank. Unfortunately since that time, the list of occupied countries has grown—I draw attention to Crimea. For the purposes of certainty for those dealing in cultural objects, it would help if we clarified exactly which territories we consider to be occupied."

John Whittingdale: "The fact that there have been no convictions does not necessarily imply that the Act is not working—it is important to have it on the statute book. I do not believe that this country is full of dodgy art dealers who wilfully ignore the law and deal in plainly illegally exported objects."

John Whittingdale: "The art market is determined and supports the Bill. The last thing it wants is for this country to become a place where people can deal in unlawfully exported objects. It is worth bearing in mind that the market is hugely competitive and the third biggest in the world—it was worth something like £9 billion in sales in 2014. I would not like to see it inadvertently put at a disadvantage compared with other markets around the globe. I hope the Government bear that in mind. As I have said, I very much welcome their commitment."

Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): "What Daesh is doing, in willfully desecrating and pillaging the artefacts in those sites, is a shameful and inexcusable crime against all of humanity. But let us be clear, not everything that Daesh is doing can be dismissed as simply malicious vandalism or an attempt to eradicate all traces of a pre-Islamic civilisation, as there is irrefutable evidence that when Daesh seizes a new city, one of its first acts is to plunder the museums and cultural sites for artefacts to raise much needed cash. Its looting of priceless artefacts is done for profit, and the flood of stolen antiquities being smuggled into the open arms of collectors across Europe and America shames us all.
Michael Danti, a Boston University archaeologist who advises the US State Department on smuggled antiquities, said last year,
“What started as opportunistic theft by some has turned into an organized transnational business that is helping fund terror”.
Irreplaceable artefacts are being stolen from an already beleaguered people and are being sold on the black market to an unscrupulous but fabulously wealthy elite, whose money is funding Daesh’s murderous campaign."

Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): "inally, I cannot resist the bait from the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). He talks about the Elgin marbles. I am afraid he does this great convention and the Bill a disservice by bringing up the Elgin marbles. They were, of course, purchased legitimately in the ​19th century. Not only that, they have been preserved to the very highest standards possible in the greatest museum in the world which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, is a world museum that is open to all, free of charge. The Elgin marbles are seen in pristine condition by millions of people. Indeed, they were recently loaned to Russia for even more people to see, which goes to show that the British Museum preserves the Elgin marbles not for any national self-interest, but for the world.
"

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): "Cyprus has witnessed its cultural and religious heritage fall prey to the policy of pillage, destruction and desecration instituted after the illegal invasion of the island in 1974, and during the subsequent and continuing occupation. Churches, chapels, monasteries, archaeological sites, libraries, museums and private collections of religious art and antiquities in the occupied areas of Cyprus have been systematically looted. The art treasure market of the entire world has for years been flooded with Cypriot antiquities from the occupied part of Cyprus. Sculptures, ceramics, figurines, statuettes, tools, weapons, frescoes, religious paintings and other works of art from Cyprus are routinely found at auction houses around the world, in particular here in London. I sought to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) to gently remind him that London is not only a centre of antiquities; it is likely to be a significant place for illegal antiquities, too. Research undertaken by The Guardian found the illegal market to be flooded with antiquities, and there are various reasons why the Government have not been able to stop it."

David Burrowes: "Let me touch on the Bill’s wording, which has been a matter of concern to the Association of Art & Antique Dealers and others. Clause 17 in part 4 needs careful attention, and we will no doubt hear more from Members about it. It is worth noting that the National Police Chiefs Council lead for heritage and cultural property crime, who should be commended and for whom resources for the enforcement effort are important, said that given that dealers in cultural property are expected to conduct due diligence checks, they would be unlikely to fall foul of the objective test of “reason to suspect”. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport impact assessment is in agreement with that, which is perhaps not surprising."

Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con): "Most of the Bill is about the illicit trade, and we must shrink the demand for these works in the world today. Contrary to some of the remarks made in passing this evening, the UK is very good in this regard. We are not the epicentre of the illicit trade in art and antiquities; that is to be found in the Gulf states, in China, in Russia and in other parts of the world. The UK is actually at the forefront of having responsible dealers and major auction houses who care about their reputations, but that is all the more reason for us to do this and lead the world in enforcement.
I want to say a few words about the offence of dealing unlawfully in exported property. We must tackle this issue, and I would like to think that the Minister would give this further thought on Report. This matters because, if we want to shrink the illicit market, we have to defend the legitimate market. The great auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s actually have very little interest in maintaining their antiquities departments; antiquities account for 1% or less of the turnover of such auction houses. It would be very easy for them and for experienced legitimate dealers to walk away from this trade, and that would matter because it would push more objects on to the black market and on to smaller auction houses that lack the compliance and legal and regulatory structures to do due diligence properly, and it would push out good dealers and give trade to those we are more concerned about."

Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): "Beyond that, I urge the Government to consider what effect this provision will have on the art market here in London. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who speaks with the advantage of being not only a lawyer, but a former director of Christie’s, this will have a stifling effect. It may be that there will not be many convictions or many arrests, but the mere threat of the reputational damage caused by this possibility is enough to put the mockers on this valuable and entirely legitimate aspect of the London art market. The art market will go elsewhere and the crooks will get away with it. If we want to catch the bad boys, and if we want to inhibit this wrong and immoral market, why not stick to the 2003 wording or something similar to it, rather than allowing this Bill to contain an error of principle which could confound the interests of all of us who wish to see the destruction and the dealing in cultural objects that have been stolen brought to an end?"

Tim Loughton: "Iraqi intelligence claims that Daesh alone has collected more than $40 million from the sale of artefacts. It is the equivalent of what the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan through the cultivation and sale of heroin to feed markets in the west. We took that very seriously and it was a priority for the invading and occupying forces in that country, yet the devastation and profit involved in the plundering of these archaeological sites and the sale of antiquities does not seem to register nearly as clearly on the world’s radar. This is an important part of putting that case firmly on the world’s agenda.​"

Tracey Crouch: "If I may, I will explain the Government’s position on clause 17. As dealers should be carrying out due diligence for any piece of cultural property that they wish to buy or sell, in accordance with industry standards, we do not consider that the legislation imposes any extra burdens on those in the art industry. In order for a criminal case ​to proceed, the prosecution must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that there is enough evidence that prosecution is needed in the public interest. Where there is credible evidence to suggest that an object may have been unlawfully exported, we consider that a dealer would not be acting in good faith if they proceeded in a deal involving that object unless further due diligence were undertaken to rebut that evidence. On that basis, we do not believe that honest dealers should be concerned about the risk of prosecution."

Friday, October 28, 2016

The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [pdf] will have its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday 31 October 2016 (see timetable).

The Bill will "enable the United Kingdom to implement the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and the Protocols to that Convention of 1954 and 1999".

The House of Commons Library analysis (25 October 2016) can be found here.

The aims of the Bill are as follows:

create offences to protect cultural property (as defined by the Convention) in the event of armed conflict

create offences relating to the unauthorised use of the “Blue Shield” – the emblem used to identify cultural property protected under the Convention and its Protocols

make it an offence to deal in cultural property illegally exported from occupied territory

introduce immunity from seizure for cultural property which is being transported to, or through, the UK for safekeeping

There has been considerable discussion and debate through the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Cultural Heritage.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Christie's is due to be auctioning a 'Roman marble draped goddess' in their auction at the Rockefeller Plaza, New York on 25 October 2016 (lot 92). It is recorded as the "property from a distinguished private collection". The collecting history ("provenance") is provided as: "with Perpitch Gallery, Paris"; and acquired from there by the current owner "prior to 1991". The estimated value is $100,000 to $150,000.

1991 is some distance in time from the benchmark date of 1970 provided by the UNESCO Convention.

The goddess appears to be the same as the one identified by Dr Christos Tsirogiannis in the Schinoussa Archive. This suggests that the goddess, at some point, passed through the hands of Robin Symes.

Why is the collecting history for the goddess that appears in the sale catalogue incomplete? Had the due diligence process failed to make the apparent link with Symes? How had the object's history between 1970 and 1991 been explained?

The two alleged ringleaders of the gang were arrested on Sunday at the Greek-Bulgarian border, and had almost 1,000 coins and small artefacts hidden in the bumper of their car. Police said they have recovered a cache of more than 2,000 objects, mostly coins, but including gold jewellery, bronze figurines, ancient glassware and some larger stone and marble statues.

A number of metal detectors were recovered.

A spokesperson for the Greek police is mentioned, "Police said the works were sold using fake provenance documents attributing them to private collections in Europe, but that the auction houses involved (which have not been named) knew the coins were illicit property and often helped inflate the final prices paid for them."

This raises the question that there is a lack of rigour in the due diligence process adopted by some, as yet unnamed, dealers. However if any of those dealers have been linked in previous cases there needs to be a full investigation of internal procedures.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Following the recent return of antiquities from the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek to Italy, the spotlight will be on other European collections that contain archaeological material that appears to have been derived from Italy. Among the museums are:

Thursday, September 22, 2016

It now appears that some of the architectural terracottas returned from Copenhagen to Italy [press release] were derived from the Etruscan sanctuary site at Pyrgi, the port serving Cerveteri. It is unclear why the museum authorities in Denmark have been so reluctant to disclose a full list of what has been returned. What is becoming clear is that many of the objects were handled by or associated with individuals such as Robert Hecht, Giacomo Medici, and Fritz Bürki.

Other European museums, especially those in Germany, Holland and the UK, need to be looking carefully at objects that were acquired from these same sources.

studies of the past are enhanced when an artifact is clearly associated with an intact archaeological context. Artifacts which lack a defined archaeological findspot or provenience have a greater potential to undermine the integrity of archaeological heritage in view of the possibility of admitting suspect artifacts into archaeological heritage. Looting is an illegal act that breaks the association between artifact and context. A looted artifact may be considered stolen property. Therefore, archaeological heritage that is looted is more likely to travel through illicit channels of distribution and/or exportation, which involve processes that may mask or confuse the identification of the artifact or its true findspot.

There is an acknowledgement of the problem of looting and the conditions for the "cuneiform exception" are made clear.

There is a deliberate recognition that there are intellectual consequences of publishing (or presenting) recently surfaced material: "introducing data of uncertain reliability to the realm of public knowledge".

It would be helpful for both organisations to focus on collecting histories and the authenticated documentation that support the presentation of such information.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

I note that the AAMD object registry has listed an Athenian gold-figured silver phiale that has been acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (inv. 2015.260.3). It had been placed on loan from June 2014.

The collecting history is given as follows:

[By 2001, with Ariadne Galleries, New York and London]; 2001, purchased by Mary and Michael Jaharis from Ariadne Galleries, New York; 2001-2015, collection of Mary and Michael Jaharis, New York; acquired in 2015, gift of Mary and Michael Jaharis in honor of Thomas P. Campbell.

Thus the history cannot be traced back to the period prior to 1970.

What information has been provided by the Ariadne Galleries? What is the extent of the due diligence search?

Interestingly the weight is given as 14.6 oz, the equivalent of over 400 g, close to the equivalent of 100 drachmas or 1 mina. Comparable pieces have been found at Duvanli in Bulgaria.

It would be difficult for the MMA if an object presented in honour of its director was found to have an unorthodox collecting history.

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).